BRUSSELS—Given the mediatic mayhem the meeting between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is causing, it is perhaps somewhat worthwhile to try and contextualize it.
Let’s start by reading this statement from the U.S. presidency: “The joint communiqué which we have issued today summarizes the result of our talks. … But what we have said in that communiqué is not nearly as important as what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostility which have divided us in the past. What we have said today is that we shall build that bridge.”
These words are not from Trump but from Richard Nixon just after he met China’s dictator and tyrant Mao-Zedong in 1972 in what is now hailed as the greatest stroke of genius of that particular American president. A stroke that restructured the interplay of the superpowers of the time. Was Mao less tyrannical or less bloodthirsty than Putin? Mao presided, among other abominations, over the “Great Leap Forward“, a ferocious fantasy that caused the death of tens of millions of Chinese men, women, and children sacrificed on the altar of communist egalitarianism.
Putin is a small-time player, in comparison—nickels and dimes. Did Nixon make less concessions than Trump? Nixon, in a nutshell, abandoned Taiwan to her fate and recognized the unity of China. In other words, Nixon and then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger gave the Chinese exactly what they wanted, because they thought it would buy China’s departure from the Soviet sphere.
Let’s get to the bottom of things: What do we want? What do President Trump’s critics propose? That we treat Russia as the perpetual enemy of the West, let the fires and counter-fires of this age-old conflict burn in every corner of the globe until, ultimately, a real war flares up? Is this what we want?
When President Barack Obama engaged U.S. forces in Syria, he was both weak and irresponsible. Weak, because he drew a “red line”—the use of chemical weapons, which the Syrian regime could transgress without consequence. Irresponsible, because it created, with the anarchic Turkish, Iranian, Russian, European, and American interventions—plus the support given to the “rebels” directly affiliated with Islamists—a crucible from which anything could arise, including a direct and open armed conflict between NATO and Russia.
We were very close to such a conflict when the Turkish regime—a member of NATO—shot down a Russian plane. (Thankfully the Russian regime demonstrated the ability to refrain from a knee-jerk reaction).
Let’s not forget that Russia has as many nuclear warheads as the United States, an arsenal they refrained from using throughout the Cold War. A nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States would instantly plunge the whole of humanity into a night from which it would probably never emerge.
From the point of view of the management of this nuclear reserve, the fact that the Russians and Americans talk to each other and negotiate is not a problem, but an absolute and constant imperative.
What strange conception of diplomacy is it that one should only meet friends? Trump is denounced for simply meeting, shaking hands with, and smiling for the media. (We would appreciate it if the press were to be as critical when the high and mighty of Europe humiliate themselves in hijab before the Tehran regime!)
Is diplomacy a gentlemen’s club? Dedicated to the game of bridge perhaps? It is a fundamental principle in business, as well as in the “realistic” conception of diplomacy, that one often gains more by meeting adversaries than friends.
And then there is the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. This interference is proven; the agreement, on this matter is now “bi-partisan.”
However, as the special counsel and the United States Department of Justice themselves admit, there is, at present, no material evidence of a collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign team; and no evidence that this interference had even the slightest influence on the result—that is to say, the considerable victory of Trump in the electoral college.
This modest interference must be compared to the far-reaching interventions of Americans in dozens of countries and hundreds of electoral processes since 1945. There are Russian spies in the United States. Big deal! So there are no U.S. agents in Russia? Espionage is confined by national borders?
Certainly, in an ideal world, there would be no such interference. In our less-than-ideal world, they must be brought to light and tackled. It’s an endeavor for which U.S. intelligence—which has the astronomical budget of nearly $70 billion per year—indeed has the means.
When I published “The Trump Revolution” in January, I sensed that this presidency would be “architectonic,” structuring the American future and therefore that of the West. North Korea, Iran, China, Russia: It is too early to discern what will be the world of tomorrow. What is certain is that it will be very different from the one we know, more realistic and less European, and that if the Europeans refuse to assert their power, they will be marginalized.
Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.